tv [untitled] February 9, 2012 3:18pm-3:48pm PST
>> ok, the planning commission is back in session. the item before you at this time is item 18. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. before you today is a discretionary review of a proposal that would expand its structure located at the end of the residential structure. it would extend approximately 7.5 feet than the existing structure. the expansion -- the expanded footprint is necessary to allow the stairs for the building code. a letter from the senior
building inspector for the district has been included in your materials. it states it can be built to meet current building code standards. the steer expansion is subject to a variants that occurred in may of 2011. designing minister took matters under advisement. the conclusions regarding the replacement have been summarized in the met -- in the letter. it will be issued after the commission's decision regarding the request. the request is raising several issues with the application in regards to the stairs. there are some inconsistencies. the following considerations were brought up. loss of privacy, and impact of the stairs on the open space.
the department's residential design team filed the project is not create extraordinary circumstances. the stairs structure is located at 9 feet from the property line and utilize is an open design. -- utilizes an open design. it does not allow for the establishment of enclosed areas. in the proposed stairs, the building death of both adjacent properties and is not -- depth of both the adjacent properties. this concludes staff presentation. i'm available for questions. commissioner antonini: thank you.
>> good afternoon. i am peter gallagher. is that better? ok. i live next door to the subject property. i realize this is the last item on your agenda today. it is probably the least important and the smallest project, but it is important to us. it is our home, and we appreciate your attention. we believed the building permits is not in condition for consideration right now. it was posted for notification some months ago and that was premature. we are here prematurely, i think, because this thing has been pushed ahead contrary to the code. a little history -- there are
some new violations introduced. the first we knew about this project was when the variance application was posted. we did not have interaction with the honor before that. they did not approached us to exist -- with the owner before that. they did not approach us to discuss it. we'll explain our situation. the zoning administrator did not issue eight variants. he said he wanted very specific things before he would issue a variance. those things were never provided. there was no reason for him to issue a variance. since there is no variants in place, there is no reason for the building process to go any further. [inaudible] i believe i can refer to the building code here.
this is section 311 of the building code. i have underlined the relevant part here. this has been determined not to be in compliance with section 12. -- 1.2 of the planning codes. it shall be held until the application is determined to be in compliance. there are three ways that this can be taken off hold. none of those three things have happened. we are extremely surprisedç and totally taken off guard by the a 311 notification. we understood that the certain items have to be produced before anything would happen. maybe didn't -- maybe things would proceed. none of that happened. we were shocked and tried to get to the bottom of this.
çthere is a notification sectin about what happened when it is determined to be in compliance. there has to be a notification and there has been no notification. all we got was a 311 notification. that is in addition to notification required by the building code. separate from the 311 notification. i believe no decision has been made on any reasonable understanding determination, i should say. just to better understand the term "determination." section 3 05 -- 305 -- part of a written decision has been